Non-speculum clinician-taken samples for human papillomavirus testing: a cross-sectional study in older women.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer incidence and mortality are high in women aged ≥65 years, despite the disease being preventable by screening. Speculum-based screening can become more uncomfortable after the menopause. AIM: To examine test performance and acceptability of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on clinician-collected vaginal samples without a speculum (non-speculum). DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study in 11 GP practices and four colposcopy clinics in London, UK, between August 2017 and January 2019. METHOD: Non-speculum and conventional (speculum) samples were collected from women aged ≥50 years attending for a colposcopy (following a speculum HPV-positive screening result) or women aged ≥35 years (with confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+), and women aged 50-64 years attending routine screening. Sensitivity to CIN2+ was assessed among women with confirmed CIN2+ (colposcopy). Specificity to HPV relative to speculum sampling and overall concordance was assessed among women with negative cytology (routine screening). RESULTS: The sensitivity of non-speculum sampling for detecting CIN2+ was 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 60.8 to 94.2) (n = 15/18). There was complete concordance among women with positive CIN2+ who had a speculum sample ≤91 days prior to the non-speculum sample (n = 12). Among 204 women with negative cytology, the specificity to HPV was 96.4% (95% CI = 92.7 to 98.5), with 96.6% concordant results (κ 72.4%). Seventy-one percent (n = 120/170) of women preferred a non-speculum sample for their next screen. CONCLUSION: HPV testing on non-speculum clinician-taken samples is a viable approach that warrants further exploration in larger studies. Overall test performance was broadly comparable with that of self-sampling.

Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed preferences for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling if offered as an alternative to clinician-based screening at the point of invitation for cervical screening. SETTING AND METHODS: An online questionnaire was completed by screening-eligible women living in England (n = 3672). Logistic regressions explored associations between demographic characteristics and screening preferences, stratified by previous screening attendance. Reasons for preferences were also assessed. RESULTS: Half of participants (51.4%) intended to choose self-sampling, 36.5% preferred clinician screening, 10.5% were unsure, and <2% preferred no screening. More irregular and never attenders chose self-sampling, compared with regular attenders (71.1% and 70.1% vs. 41.0% respectively). Among regular attenders, self-sampling was preferred more frequently by the highest occupational grade, older and lesbian, gay and bisexual women, and those with experience of blood self-tests. In the irregular attender group, older women and those with experience of blood self-tests were more likely to choose self-sampling. In 'never attenders', self-sampling was less popular in ethnic minority groups. CONCLUSIONS: If offered a choice of screening, around half of women in England may choose self-sampling, but a substantial proportion would still opt for clinician screening. Screening providers will need to manage a high take-up of self-sampling if many regular attenders switch to self-sampling.

Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer disproportionately affects women ≥65 years, especially those not screened regularly. Speculum use is a key barrier. AIM: To assess if offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling increases uptake for lapsed attenders aged 50-64 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pragmatic randomised control trial conducted at 10 general practices in East London, UK. METHOD: Participants were 784 women aged 50-64 years, last screened 6-15 years before randomisation. Intervention participants received a letter offering the choice of non-speculum clinician- or self-sampling. Control participants received usual care. The main outcome measure was uptake within 4 months. RESULTS: Screening uptake 4 months after randomisation was significantly higher in the intervention arm: 20.4% (n = 80/393) versus 4.9% in the control arm (n = 19/391, absolute difference 15.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.0% to 20.0%, P<0.001). This was maintained at 12 months: intervention 30.5% (n = 120/393) versus control 13.6% (n = 53/391) (absolute difference 17.0%, 95% CI = 11.3% to 22.7%, P<0.001). Conventional screening attendance within 12 months was very similar for both intervention 12.7% (n = 50/393) and control 13.6% (n = 53/391) arms. Ethnic differences were seen in screening modality preference. More White women opted for self-sampling (50.7%, n = 38/75), whereas most Asian and Black women and those from other ethnic backgrounds opted for conventional screening. CONCLUSION: Offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling substantially increases uptake in older lapsed attendee women. Non-speculum clinician sampling appeals to women who dislike the speculum but still prefer a clinician to take their sample. Providing a choice of screening modality may be important for optimising cervical screening uptake.

Cervical screening attendance and cervical cancer risk among women who have sex with women.

OBJECTIVES: To describe cervical cancer screening participation among women who have sex exclusively with women (WSEW) and women who have sex with women and men (WSWM) compared with women who have sex exclusively with men (WSEM), and women who have never had sex and compare this with bowel (colorectal) and breast screening participation. To explore whether there is evidence of differential stage 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) or cervical cancer risk. METHODS: We describe cervical, bowel and breast cancer screening uptake in age groups eligible for the national screening programmes, prevalent CIN3 and cervical cancer at baseline, and incident CIN3 and cervical cancer at five years follow-up, among 218,674 women in UK Biobank, a cohort of healthy volunteers from the UK. RESULTS: Compared with WSEM, in adjusted analysis [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)], WSEW 0.10 (0.08-0.13), WSWM 0.73 (0.58-0.91), and women who have never had sex 0.02 (0.01-0.02) were less likely to report ever having attended cervical screening. There were no differences when considering bowel cancer screening uptake (p = 0.61). For breast cancer screening, attendance was lower among WSWM 0.79 (0.68 to 0.91) and women who have never had sex 0.47 (0.29-0.58), compared with WSEM. There were incident and prevalent cases of both CIN3 and cervical cancer among WSEW and WSWM. Compared with WSEM with a single male partner, among WSEW there was a twofold increase in CIN3 1.91 (1.01 to 3.59); among WSWM with only one male partner, this was 2.25 (1.19 to 4.24). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of improving uptake of cervical screening among all women who have sex with women and breast screening among WSWM and women who have never had sex.

Could changing invitation and booking processes help women translate their cervical screening intentions into action? A population-based survey of women's preferences in Great Britain.

OBJECTIVES: Many women who do not attend screening intend to go, but do not get around to booking an appointment. Qualitative work suggests that these 'intenders' face more practical barriers to screening than women who are up-to-date ('maintainers'). This study explored practical barriers to booking a screening appointment and preferences for alternative invitation and booking methods that might overcome these barriers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was employed. SETTING: Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 25-64, living in Great Britain who intended to be screened but were overdue ('intenders', n=255) and women who were up-to-date with screening ('maintainers', n=359). RESULTS: 'Intenders' reported slightly more barriers than 'maintainers' overall (mean=1.36 vs 1.06, t=3.03, p<0.01) and were more likely to think they might forget to book an appointment (OR=2.87, 95% CI: 2.01 to 4.09). Over half of women said they would book on a website using a smartphone (62%), a computer (58%) or via an app (52%). Older women and women from lower social grades were less likely to say they would use online booking methods (all ps <0.05). Women who reported two or more barriers were more likely to say they would use online booking than women who reported none (ps <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Women who are overdue for screening face practical barriers to booking appointments. Future interventions may assess the efficacy of changing the architecture of the invitation and booking system. This may help women overcome logistical barriers to participation and increase coverage for cervical screening.

Barriers to cervical screening and interest in self-sampling among women who actively decline screening.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding why some women actively decline cervical screening could contribute to tailored intervention development. We explored reasons for non-participation in cervical screening among women who had made an active decision not to attend in the future. We also explored interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling. METHODS: In a population-based survey of women in Great Britain, home-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with screening eligible women. Women reported their intention to attend for screening when next invited. They endorsed predefined barriers to screening and indicated their interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling. RESULTS: Women who had actively declined screening and those who intended to go but were currently overdue (n=543) were included in this analysis. Women who had made an active decision not to be screened in the future were more likely to endorse the barriers 'I have other more important things to worry about' and to perceive screening to be of low relevance based on their sexual behaviour. Most participants (70%) indicated that they would be interested in human papillomavirus self-sampling. Interest in self-sampling was greater among those who reported having had a bad experience of screening in the past, were too busy or embarrassed to attend, or would not want a man to carry out the test. CONCLUSIONS: Women who had made an active decision not to attend screening felt it was of low relevance to them and that they had more important things to worry about. Shifting the perceived cost-benefit ratio for these women by offering human papillomavirus self-sampling might increase screening participation in this group.

Acceptability of non-speculum clinician sampling for cervical screening in older women: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: One reason that women over age 50 report avoiding cervical screening is increased discomfort postmenopause. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of human papillomavirus testing on clinician-collected vaginal samples without a speculum ('non-speculum') for cervical screening among older women. METHODS: Thirty-eight women in England aged 50-64 with a range of cervical screening experience ('up-to-date' n = 17, 'overdue screening' n = 18, 'never screened' n = 3) were identified via a recruitment agency. Women participated in focus groups or interviews about the potential for using clinician-collected samples without a speculum. Discussions were analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: The two main themes identified were women's perceptions of the speculum and attitudes towards non-speculum screening. Many women reported negative experiences with the speculum, including increased pain after the menopause. Women generally had positive attitudes towards non-speculum clinician sampling and felt it would be a less intrusive option, but expressed concern that it could be less accurate than screening with a speculum. Women who were 'up-to-date' preferred conventional screening, while overdue and never screened women welcomed the option to be screened without a speculum. CONCLUSIONS: Human papillomavirus testing on non-speculum clinician-collected vaginal samples could be an acceptable alternative cervical screening method for older women. Offering this approach could increase screening uptake in older women who find conventional cervical screening to be less acceptable with ageing or the menopause.

A cluster randomised feasibility study of an adolescent incentive intervention to increase uptake of HPV vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is suboptimal among some groups. We aimed to determine the feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of incentives to improve HPV vaccination uptake by increasing consent form return. METHODS: An equal-allocation, two-arm cluster RCT design was used. We invited 60 London schools to participate. Those agreeing were randomised to either a standard invitation or incentive intervention arm, in which Year 8 girls had the chance to win a £50 shopping voucher if they returned a vaccination consent form, regardless of whether consent was provided. We collected data on school and parent participation rates and questionnaire response rates. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Six schools completed the trial and only 3% of parents opted out. The response rate was 70% for the girls' questionnaire and 17% for the parents'. In the intervention arm, 87% of girls returned a consent form compared with 67% in the standard invitation arm. The proportion of girls whose parents gave consent for vaccination was higher in the intervention arm (76%) than the standard invitation arm (61%). CONCLUSIONS: An RCT of an incentive intervention is feasible. The intervention may improve vaccination uptake but a fully powered RCT is needed.

Cancer fear and fatalism among ethnic minority women in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Cancer fear and fatalism are believed to be higher in ethnic minorities and may contribute to lower engagement with cancer prevention and early detection. We explored the levels of cancer fear and fatalism in six ethnic groups in the United Kingdom and examined the contribution of acculturation and general fatalism. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 720 White British, Caribbean, African, Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi women (120 of each) was conducted. Three items assessed cancer fear and two cancer fatalism. Acculturation was assessed using (self-reported) migration status, ability to speak English, and understanding of health leaflets; general fatalism with a standard measure. RESULTS: Relative to White British women, African and Indian women were more fearful of cancer, Bangladeshi women less fearful, and Pakistani and Caribbean women were similar to White British women. Cancer fatalism was higher in all the ethnic minority groups compared with White British women. Less acculturated women were less likely to worry (ORs 0.21-0.45, all P<0.05) or feel particularly afraid (ORs 0.11-0.31, all P<0.05) but more likely to feel uncomfortable about cancer (ORs 1.97-3.03, all P<0.05). Lower acculturation (ORs 4.30-17.27, P<0.05) and general fatalism (OR 2.29, P<0.05) were associated with the belief that cancer is predetermined. CONCLUSIONS: In general, cancer fear and fatalism are more prevalent among ethnic minority than White British women and even more so in less acculturated ethnic minorities. This may affect their participation in cancer prevention and early detection.

Knowledge of cervical cancer and attendance at cervical cancer screening: a survey of Black women in London.

BACKGROUND: Women from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to attend cervical screening, but further understanding of ethnic inequalities in cervical screening uptake is yet to be established. This study aimed to explore the socio-demographic and ethnicity-related predictors of cervical cancer knowledge, cervical screening attendance and reasons for non-attendance among Black women in London. METHODS: A questionnaire was completed by women attending Black and ethnic hair and beauty specialists in London between February and April 2013. A stratified sampling frame was used to identify Black hair specialists in London subdivisions with >10% Black population (including UK and foreign-born). Fifty-nine salons participated. Knowledge of cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms, self-reported screening attendance and reasons for non-attendance at cervical screening were assessed. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 937 Black women aged 18-78, describing themselves as being predominantly from African or Caribbean backgrounds (response rate 26.5%). Higher educational qualifications (p < .001) and being born in the UK (p = .011) were associated with greater risk factor knowledge. Older age was associated with greater symptom knowledge (p < .001). Being younger, single, African (compared to Caribbean) and attending religious services more frequently were associated with being overdue for screening. Women who had migrated to the UK more than 10 years ago were less likely to be overdue than those born in the UK. Of those overdue for screening who endorsed a barrier (67/133), 'I meant to go but didn't get round to it' (28%), fear of the test procedure (18%) and low risk perception (18%) were the most common barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity, migration and religiosity play a role in predicting cervical screening attendance among women from Black backgrounds. African women, those born in the UK and those who regularly attend church are most likely to put off attending. Additional research is needed to explore the attitudes, experiences and beliefs that explain why these groups might differ.